Post by Angelus Periculum on Jun 6, 2008 13:02:38 GMT -5
Gareth, best not to both trying to reason with Prokofy at all. I tried once and met a stonewall where anything at I that I said made any difference whatsoever. Prokofy ignores any facts whatsoever that do not fit in with his views. There can never be any research done that is enough to make something a solid fact to him, nor can a stated fact ever be without bias in his eyes.
Everything has some sort of socio-political spin/meaning or somehow has a religious meaning behind it. Nothing is ever taken at face value, nor is the issue itself debated.
Frankly you'd have better time trying to convince a rock that it is really a blade of grass than you would of getting Prokofy to admit any truth in any view not his own.
Posted by: Solar Legion | June 06, 2008 at 11:08 AM
I'm aware that reasoning with prokofy is rarely worth the time. However, some remarks just go over the top.
Tell me prok, how many abusive parents kill their NT children and don't go to jail for it?
Posted by: Gareth Nelson | June 06, 2008 at 03:44 PM
Solar, nice try playing 'victim," but anyone can post here if they use their SL name and nothing is removed unless they incite actual damage, i.e. stalking, harassment, violent in real life against me or damage to me in SL by gross griefing attacks and so on. Your actions on the JIRA and elsewhere, however, invalidate you as an interlocutor. I don't waste time mustering arguments, responding to claims of hypocrisy, etc. etc. with people I regard as invalid interlocutors (see my recent post on this issue). I see no reason to debate an anonymous gamer f**ktard on the Internet who closes people's JIRAs because they don't like them.
Um, Gareth? Tell me. Are you, at the grand age of 19, as one tethered to the Internet every waking hour, with absolutely no practical RL experience or RL job or experience of any sort not related to the Internet, any sort of credible source on this issue, especially as you are a proclaimed exterme autism liberationist?
Hardly.
Your M.O. will be to ask leading questions based on tendentious trumped-up data; you will try to shame, ridicule, trip up, embarrass anyone who disagrees with you by *lying* about data *about which you really have no knowledge*. It's like the PETA freaks or any extremist interested in trying to gain power over others and keep people off balance, and emotionally blackmailing people by playing victim, not out of any real concern for their stated cause.
Lots of parents aren't charged for child deaths that have nothing to do with autism.
People who have autistic spectrum childen and have abused and even murdered them *have* been tried as well.
So it's a skewed, tendentious and hysterical sample.
As far as I'm concerned, it's pointless to continue the discussion.
I've found a good author, a far better writer than me, that sums up the larger problem here as I discussed earlier, David Brooks, in "On Paradise Drive", on the problem of leftwing professors at colleges and what they teach:
"Truth is indeterminate, the (one) cutting-edge literary critics argued. Texts can be deconstructed in an infinitude of ways, and words are signifiers open to a diversity of meanings. Every point of view dserves respect. The enlightened person should be open to everything -- opinions, lifestyles, and ideologies -- and closed to nothing. One should never judge The Other harshly, but should respect minority or multicultural alternatives. These notions may have been promulgated by people who thought of themselevs as radicals -- they were French deconstructionists, tenured revolutionaries, or transgressive countercultural provocatuers.
But they are ideas perfectly suited to the ethos of the achievement-oriented capitalist. After all, why should the achiever want to make enemies or waste time in angry conflict? Why should the time meximizer struggle to find that thing called Absolute Truth when it is more efficient to settle for perception?
Why should one get involved in the problematic rigor of judging? Easygoing tolerance is energy-efficient. The world of floating significers and upended cultural hierarchies, in which nothing has any fixed attachment to a unviersal truth, and in which it is as valid to write a paper interpreting denim as Dante, is a world of maximum fluidity and flexibility: just the sort of world the opportunity-seeking meritocrat wants to live in. In other words, the radical ideas that were first espoused in fits of protest and anger -- ideas that were meant to tear down reactionary hierarchies and question the foundations of truth -- now seem like convenient intellectual habits for people of mild disposition and strategizing minds."
Posted by: Prokofy Neva | June 06, 2008 at 04:30 PM
In other words Prokofy, you see no reason to actually step off of your high horse, put aside the bull nuts, and actually act like a human being. Ok, I understand that.
Another typical, excuse filled, accusation laden response totally devoid of any real facts ... Let alone any desire to see past your own hatred of anyone who disagrees with you.
Sorry, I know a few people in town who have posted to this blog of yours and who have had their posting ability removed based solely on rather skewed conjecture and opinion.
As far as I am concerned, your responses from this point forward are invalid.
IM me in world when you are able to form a coherent sentence that does not include baseless accusations, meaningless drivel concerning anything you have written on this blog ... and when you can act like a rational human being.
Posted by: Solar Legion | June 06, 2008 at 05:50 PM
Solar, who is a nasty little not a very nice person on the JIRA, closing proposals he doesn't like and writing tripe, provides a good example of the Geek Religion problem, something I should add to the next edition.
Solar, who appears to be yet another fearsome 19-year-old gamer on the grid, has no critical ability, ability to debate, ability to think or reflect, or do anything except mouth the platitudes that I've outlined in "Geek Religion" which he hopes will give him a great sense of belonging to his little dweeby tribe.
If something is true -- and you recognize it as true -- then it would be part of your own worldview.
If something is true to someone else, but you don't recognize it as true, why would you acknowledge it as true? You haven't seen it as true. Can you provide some credit of faith that it *might* be true? Well, why? You gave it a good shot, examined it, found it *not* to be true by your lights, conscience, experience, knowledge, etc.
Why would you endlessly go on celebrating the truth of someone else's truth? You would not; you would not dignify it with the name of "truth".
Yet Solar Legion and the other legions of Geek Co-Religionists believe that if they have the truth, and see something as the truth, why, everyone should shut up and acknowledge it as the truth, even if they disagree for their own benighted, stupid reasons, ostensibly. And sorry, but that dog won't hunt.
Let's not distinguish *tolerance* of another's viewpoint -- conceding that they get to have that viewpoint, and do have it, and it is legitimate enough as far as it goes *for them* but there's no need to call it "a truth" or "the truth".
Example: someone is for abortion, and even gets one. I personally abhor abortion; I think it's a sin and a crime, and would never get one myself and would urge friends not to get them. I've seen friends regret having them and be sad the rest of their lives. But that's my own personal religious/cultural belief.
We live in a country where abortion is legal. Am I going to fight against it being legal? Well, no, because enough people prevailed who felt it was useful to legalize that I think it would be a futile fight. I think on morality issues it's better to persuade by example, private conversations, persuasive op-ed pieces, etc. rather than laws.
People who get abortions have their reasons; they are in a jam, they solve their problem this way. I think it's wrong; they don't, or they do, but feel driven. It's their own moral story. I concede them their right to their own morality/moral choices/moral dimension, but I don't say they are right. I don't say "they have the truth".
The inability to distinguish tolerance for a plurality of views with having to have them all is one of the banes of our time. You don't. You can concede that a view has a right to exist while continuing to persuade the holder of that view that the view is wrong -- you don't have to be rounded up with the rest of the Winnebagos into the tribal circle and concede victory to the powerful who thought that truth should prevail.
In the case of this "death to Aspies" stuff, however, we're dealing with tendentious and extreme craziness. It's like the PETA hysterics. The adopt this extreme position merely to try to have power over other people, to shame them into doing what they want, in entitlement-mode. As is known, that sort of tactic fails profoundly with me.
Posted by: Prokofy Neva | June 06, 2008 at 12:52 PM
See the above meaningless diatribe concerning nothing at all based in truth, which for those that would swallow the above diatribe word for word, is commonly accepted as something with a concrete basis in fact and what is real, not a person's perceived notions or opinions.
Prokofy, kindly provide concrete proof of your allegations regarding my intents, overall character and 'world view' which do not include your own opinions.
Until then you are spouting baseless accusations and meaningless diatribes based only on your own opinions, which are not facts nor are they 'truth'.
As far as Religion goes ... my personal faith has no bearing on anything whatsoever. A mindset or attitude that you perceive from many people is not a religion Prokofy, it is a mindset or an attitude.
Just as your own mindset and attitude are that of a person who must always be right and must put each and every person you dislike or that disagrees with you into some nonexistent group or ascribe to them some nonexistent 'Religion' or other such nonsense.
I fully expected you to make an attempt to salvage yourself while at the same time attempting to spin everything to be on me. Nice try though. It really does not work, nor will it work.
I fully expect either another meaningless tirade in response to this comment as well as some meaningless drivel concerning something or other used as an excuse to silence yet another dissenting voice simply because you wish to.
Go ahead, I keep logs of all comments I make everywhere and upon deletion/removal of ability to post those logs go into a far safer place for when I finally find someone willing to post them and all replies.
Please, remain true to your nature and give me an excuse.
Posted by: Solar Legion | June 06, 2008 at 01:48 PM
I'm aware that reasoning with prokofy is rarely worth the time. However, some remarks just go over the top.
Tell me prok, how many abusive parents kill their NT children and don't go to jail for it?
Posted by: Gareth Nelson | June 06, 2008 at 03:44 PM
Solar, nice try playing 'victim," but anyone can post here if they use their SL name and nothing is removed unless they incite actual damage, i.e. stalking, harassment, violent in real life against me or damage to me in SL by gross griefing attacks and so on. Your actions on the JIRA and elsewhere, however, invalidate you as an interlocutor. I don't waste time mustering arguments, responding to claims of hypocrisy, etc. etc. with people I regard as invalid interlocutors (see my recent post on this issue). I see no reason to debate an anonymous gamer f**ktard on the Internet who closes people's JIRAs because they don't like them.
Um, Gareth? Tell me. Are you, at the grand age of 19, as one tethered to the Internet every waking hour, with absolutely no practical RL experience or RL job or experience of any sort not related to the Internet, any sort of credible source on this issue, especially as you are a proclaimed exterme autism liberationist?
Hardly.
Your M.O. will be to ask leading questions based on tendentious trumped-up data; you will try to shame, ridicule, trip up, embarrass anyone who disagrees with you by *lying* about data *about which you really have no knowledge*. It's like the PETA freaks or any extremist interested in trying to gain power over others and keep people off balance, and emotionally blackmailing people by playing victim, not out of any real concern for their stated cause.
Lots of parents aren't charged for child deaths that have nothing to do with autism.
People who have autistic spectrum childen and have abused and even murdered them *have* been tried as well.
So it's a skewed, tendentious and hysterical sample.
As far as I'm concerned, it's pointless to continue the discussion.
I've found a good author, a far better writer than me, that sums up the larger problem here as I discussed earlier, David Brooks, in "On Paradise Drive", on the problem of leftwing professors at colleges and what they teach:
"Truth is indeterminate, the (one) cutting-edge literary critics argued. Texts can be deconstructed in an infinitude of ways, and words are signifiers open to a diversity of meanings. Every point of view dserves respect. The enlightened person should be open to everything -- opinions, lifestyles, and ideologies -- and closed to nothing. One should never judge The Other harshly, but should respect minority or multicultural alternatives. These notions may have been promulgated by people who thought of themselevs as radicals -- they were French deconstructionists, tenured revolutionaries, or transgressive countercultural provocatuers.
But they are ideas perfectly suited to the ethos of the achievement-oriented capitalist. After all, why should the achiever want to make enemies or waste time in angry conflict? Why should the time meximizer struggle to find that thing called Absolute Truth when it is more efficient to settle for perception?
Why should one get involved in the problematic rigor of judging? Easygoing tolerance is energy-efficient. The world of floating significers and upended cultural hierarchies, in which nothing has any fixed attachment to a unviersal truth, and in which it is as valid to write a paper interpreting denim as Dante, is a world of maximum fluidity and flexibility: just the sort of world the opportunity-seeking meritocrat wants to live in. In other words, the radical ideas that were first espoused in fits of protest and anger -- ideas that were meant to tear down reactionary hierarchies and question the foundations of truth -- now seem like convenient intellectual habits for people of mild disposition and strategizing minds."
Posted by: Prokofy Neva | June 06, 2008 at 04:30 PM
In other words Prokofy, you see no reason to actually step off of your high horse, put aside the bull nuts, and actually act like a human being. Ok, I understand that.
Another typical, excuse filled, accusation laden response totally devoid of any real facts ... Let alone any desire to see past your own hatred of anyone who disagrees with you.
Sorry, I know a few people in town who have posted to this blog of yours and who have had their posting ability removed based solely on rather skewed conjecture and opinion.
As far as I am concerned, your responses from this point forward are invalid.
IM me in world when you are able to form a coherent sentence that does not include baseless accusations, meaningless drivel concerning anything you have written on this blog ... and when you can act like a rational human being.
Posted by: Solar Legion | June 06, 2008 at 05:50 PM
Everything has some sort of socio-political spin/meaning or somehow has a religious meaning behind it. Nothing is ever taken at face value, nor is the issue itself debated.
Frankly you'd have better time trying to convince a rock that it is really a blade of grass than you would of getting Prokofy to admit any truth in any view not his own.
Posted by: Solar Legion | June 06, 2008 at 11:08 AM
I'm aware that reasoning with prokofy is rarely worth the time. However, some remarks just go over the top.
Tell me prok, how many abusive parents kill their NT children and don't go to jail for it?
Posted by: Gareth Nelson | June 06, 2008 at 03:44 PM
Solar, nice try playing 'victim," but anyone can post here if they use their SL name and nothing is removed unless they incite actual damage, i.e. stalking, harassment, violent in real life against me or damage to me in SL by gross griefing attacks and so on. Your actions on the JIRA and elsewhere, however, invalidate you as an interlocutor. I don't waste time mustering arguments, responding to claims of hypocrisy, etc. etc. with people I regard as invalid interlocutors (see my recent post on this issue). I see no reason to debate an anonymous gamer f**ktard on the Internet who closes people's JIRAs because they don't like them.
Um, Gareth? Tell me. Are you, at the grand age of 19, as one tethered to the Internet every waking hour, with absolutely no practical RL experience or RL job or experience of any sort not related to the Internet, any sort of credible source on this issue, especially as you are a proclaimed exterme autism liberationist?
Hardly.
Your M.O. will be to ask leading questions based on tendentious trumped-up data; you will try to shame, ridicule, trip up, embarrass anyone who disagrees with you by *lying* about data *about which you really have no knowledge*. It's like the PETA freaks or any extremist interested in trying to gain power over others and keep people off balance, and emotionally blackmailing people by playing victim, not out of any real concern for their stated cause.
Lots of parents aren't charged for child deaths that have nothing to do with autism.
People who have autistic spectrum childen and have abused and even murdered them *have* been tried as well.
So it's a skewed, tendentious and hysterical sample.
As far as I'm concerned, it's pointless to continue the discussion.
I've found a good author, a far better writer than me, that sums up the larger problem here as I discussed earlier, David Brooks, in "On Paradise Drive", on the problem of leftwing professors at colleges and what they teach:
"Truth is indeterminate, the (one) cutting-edge literary critics argued. Texts can be deconstructed in an infinitude of ways, and words are signifiers open to a diversity of meanings. Every point of view dserves respect. The enlightened person should be open to everything -- opinions, lifestyles, and ideologies -- and closed to nothing. One should never judge The Other harshly, but should respect minority or multicultural alternatives. These notions may have been promulgated by people who thought of themselevs as radicals -- they were French deconstructionists, tenured revolutionaries, or transgressive countercultural provocatuers.
But they are ideas perfectly suited to the ethos of the achievement-oriented capitalist. After all, why should the achiever want to make enemies or waste time in angry conflict? Why should the time meximizer struggle to find that thing called Absolute Truth when it is more efficient to settle for perception?
Why should one get involved in the problematic rigor of judging? Easygoing tolerance is energy-efficient. The world of floating significers and upended cultural hierarchies, in which nothing has any fixed attachment to a unviersal truth, and in which it is as valid to write a paper interpreting denim as Dante, is a world of maximum fluidity and flexibility: just the sort of world the opportunity-seeking meritocrat wants to live in. In other words, the radical ideas that were first espoused in fits of protest and anger -- ideas that were meant to tear down reactionary hierarchies and question the foundations of truth -- now seem like convenient intellectual habits for people of mild disposition and strategizing minds."
Posted by: Prokofy Neva | June 06, 2008 at 04:30 PM
In other words Prokofy, you see no reason to actually step off of your high horse, put aside the bull nuts, and actually act like a human being. Ok, I understand that.
Another typical, excuse filled, accusation laden response totally devoid of any real facts ... Let alone any desire to see past your own hatred of anyone who disagrees with you.
Sorry, I know a few people in town who have posted to this blog of yours and who have had their posting ability removed based solely on rather skewed conjecture and opinion.
As far as I am concerned, your responses from this point forward are invalid.
IM me in world when you are able to form a coherent sentence that does not include baseless accusations, meaningless drivel concerning anything you have written on this blog ... and when you can act like a rational human being.
Posted by: Solar Legion | June 06, 2008 at 05:50 PM
Solar, who is a nasty little not a very nice person on the JIRA, closing proposals he doesn't like and writing tripe, provides a good example of the Geek Religion problem, something I should add to the next edition.
Solar, who appears to be yet another fearsome 19-year-old gamer on the grid, has no critical ability, ability to debate, ability to think or reflect, or do anything except mouth the platitudes that I've outlined in "Geek Religion" which he hopes will give him a great sense of belonging to his little dweeby tribe.
If something is true -- and you recognize it as true -- then it would be part of your own worldview.
If something is true to someone else, but you don't recognize it as true, why would you acknowledge it as true? You haven't seen it as true. Can you provide some credit of faith that it *might* be true? Well, why? You gave it a good shot, examined it, found it *not* to be true by your lights, conscience, experience, knowledge, etc.
Why would you endlessly go on celebrating the truth of someone else's truth? You would not; you would not dignify it with the name of "truth".
Yet Solar Legion and the other legions of Geek Co-Religionists believe that if they have the truth, and see something as the truth, why, everyone should shut up and acknowledge it as the truth, even if they disagree for their own benighted, stupid reasons, ostensibly. And sorry, but that dog won't hunt.
Let's not distinguish *tolerance* of another's viewpoint -- conceding that they get to have that viewpoint, and do have it, and it is legitimate enough as far as it goes *for them* but there's no need to call it "a truth" or "the truth".
Example: someone is for abortion, and even gets one. I personally abhor abortion; I think it's a sin and a crime, and would never get one myself and would urge friends not to get them. I've seen friends regret having them and be sad the rest of their lives. But that's my own personal religious/cultural belief.
We live in a country where abortion is legal. Am I going to fight against it being legal? Well, no, because enough people prevailed who felt it was useful to legalize that I think it would be a futile fight. I think on morality issues it's better to persuade by example, private conversations, persuasive op-ed pieces, etc. rather than laws.
People who get abortions have their reasons; they are in a jam, they solve their problem this way. I think it's wrong; they don't, or they do, but feel driven. It's their own moral story. I concede them their right to their own morality/moral choices/moral dimension, but I don't say they are right. I don't say "they have the truth".
The inability to distinguish tolerance for a plurality of views with having to have them all is one of the banes of our time. You don't. You can concede that a view has a right to exist while continuing to persuade the holder of that view that the view is wrong -- you don't have to be rounded up with the rest of the Winnebagos into the tribal circle and concede victory to the powerful who thought that truth should prevail.
In the case of this "death to Aspies" stuff, however, we're dealing with tendentious and extreme craziness. It's like the PETA hysterics. The adopt this extreme position merely to try to have power over other people, to shame them into doing what they want, in entitlement-mode. As is known, that sort of tactic fails profoundly with me.
Posted by: Prokofy Neva | June 06, 2008 at 12:52 PM
See the above meaningless diatribe concerning nothing at all based in truth, which for those that would swallow the above diatribe word for word, is commonly accepted as something with a concrete basis in fact and what is real, not a person's perceived notions or opinions.
Prokofy, kindly provide concrete proof of your allegations regarding my intents, overall character and 'world view' which do not include your own opinions.
Until then you are spouting baseless accusations and meaningless diatribes based only on your own opinions, which are not facts nor are they 'truth'.
As far as Religion goes ... my personal faith has no bearing on anything whatsoever. A mindset or attitude that you perceive from many people is not a religion Prokofy, it is a mindset or an attitude.
Just as your own mindset and attitude are that of a person who must always be right and must put each and every person you dislike or that disagrees with you into some nonexistent group or ascribe to them some nonexistent 'Religion' or other such nonsense.
I fully expected you to make an attempt to salvage yourself while at the same time attempting to spin everything to be on me. Nice try though. It really does not work, nor will it work.
I fully expect either another meaningless tirade in response to this comment as well as some meaningless drivel concerning something or other used as an excuse to silence yet another dissenting voice simply because you wish to.
Go ahead, I keep logs of all comments I make everywhere and upon deletion/removal of ability to post those logs go into a far safer place for when I finally find someone willing to post them and all replies.
Please, remain true to your nature and give me an excuse.
Posted by: Solar Legion | June 06, 2008 at 01:48 PM
I'm aware that reasoning with prokofy is rarely worth the time. However, some remarks just go over the top.
Tell me prok, how many abusive parents kill their NT children and don't go to jail for it?
Posted by: Gareth Nelson | June 06, 2008 at 03:44 PM
Solar, nice try playing 'victim," but anyone can post here if they use their SL name and nothing is removed unless they incite actual damage, i.e. stalking, harassment, violent in real life against me or damage to me in SL by gross griefing attacks and so on. Your actions on the JIRA and elsewhere, however, invalidate you as an interlocutor. I don't waste time mustering arguments, responding to claims of hypocrisy, etc. etc. with people I regard as invalid interlocutors (see my recent post on this issue). I see no reason to debate an anonymous gamer f**ktard on the Internet who closes people's JIRAs because they don't like them.
Um, Gareth? Tell me. Are you, at the grand age of 19, as one tethered to the Internet every waking hour, with absolutely no practical RL experience or RL job or experience of any sort not related to the Internet, any sort of credible source on this issue, especially as you are a proclaimed exterme autism liberationist?
Hardly.
Your M.O. will be to ask leading questions based on tendentious trumped-up data; you will try to shame, ridicule, trip up, embarrass anyone who disagrees with you by *lying* about data *about which you really have no knowledge*. It's like the PETA freaks or any extremist interested in trying to gain power over others and keep people off balance, and emotionally blackmailing people by playing victim, not out of any real concern for their stated cause.
Lots of parents aren't charged for child deaths that have nothing to do with autism.
People who have autistic spectrum childen and have abused and even murdered them *have* been tried as well.
So it's a skewed, tendentious and hysterical sample.
As far as I'm concerned, it's pointless to continue the discussion.
I've found a good author, a far better writer than me, that sums up the larger problem here as I discussed earlier, David Brooks, in "On Paradise Drive", on the problem of leftwing professors at colleges and what they teach:
"Truth is indeterminate, the (one) cutting-edge literary critics argued. Texts can be deconstructed in an infinitude of ways, and words are signifiers open to a diversity of meanings. Every point of view dserves respect. The enlightened person should be open to everything -- opinions, lifestyles, and ideologies -- and closed to nothing. One should never judge The Other harshly, but should respect minority or multicultural alternatives. These notions may have been promulgated by people who thought of themselevs as radicals -- they were French deconstructionists, tenured revolutionaries, or transgressive countercultural provocatuers.
But they are ideas perfectly suited to the ethos of the achievement-oriented capitalist. After all, why should the achiever want to make enemies or waste time in angry conflict? Why should the time meximizer struggle to find that thing called Absolute Truth when it is more efficient to settle for perception?
Why should one get involved in the problematic rigor of judging? Easygoing tolerance is energy-efficient. The world of floating significers and upended cultural hierarchies, in which nothing has any fixed attachment to a unviersal truth, and in which it is as valid to write a paper interpreting denim as Dante, is a world of maximum fluidity and flexibility: just the sort of world the opportunity-seeking meritocrat wants to live in. In other words, the radical ideas that were first espoused in fits of protest and anger -- ideas that were meant to tear down reactionary hierarchies and question the foundations of truth -- now seem like convenient intellectual habits for people of mild disposition and strategizing minds."
Posted by: Prokofy Neva | June 06, 2008 at 04:30 PM
In other words Prokofy, you see no reason to actually step off of your high horse, put aside the bull nuts, and actually act like a human being. Ok, I understand that.
Another typical, excuse filled, accusation laden response totally devoid of any real facts ... Let alone any desire to see past your own hatred of anyone who disagrees with you.
Sorry, I know a few people in town who have posted to this blog of yours and who have had their posting ability removed based solely on rather skewed conjecture and opinion.
As far as I am concerned, your responses from this point forward are invalid.
IM me in world when you are able to form a coherent sentence that does not include baseless accusations, meaningless drivel concerning anything you have written on this blog ... and when you can act like a rational human being.
Posted by: Solar Legion | June 06, 2008 at 05:50 PM